Reaction 1

What, in your own words, is Social Darwinism? How was it used to explain a variety of circumstances (e.g. economic and racial/ethnic) in the late 19th century? Do you hear any of the same sentiment echoed today? Evaluate the theory. Do you find it valid? Why or why not?

Social Darwinism is the concept that the strongest and most fit members of society should be allowed to flourish and prosper while the menial lower classes should cease to exist. It is an extremist ideology parallel to Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest. Social Darwinism was a regurgitated theory found many times as the regurgitated excuse for prejudice or unfair advancement throughout the 19th century.
A prime example of Social Darwinism is the mistreatment of the freed African Americans. Under the belief of Social Darwinism the African Americans are lesser beings that cannot equate the white man. The African American slave or even freedman cannot adapt to superior standards of the white race, thusly they should not be given the chance or the help to rise above their circumstances and prosper. It was seen that theoretically if the African American could be overpowered by the white man and put into bondage, than it because he is the weaker race of the species and should inevitably work to promote the stronger and more powerful white man, or die in the process. This dichotomy of stronger upper class versus weaker lower class was embraced by the powerful and prosperous and could only benefit from the institution of slavery.

Another example of the Social Darwinist theory in the late 19th century is the capitalistic monopolies in big business. As in the railroad companies built by Vanderbilt who was able to buy out any smaller companies that could challenge his power, he proved to be the stronger opponent and despite the potentially destructive effect such a monopoly could have on the American economy; Vanderbilt was only concerned with his own gain. The same goes for Carnegie and his steel production though in this case Social Darwinism does not only comply building monopolies, but by the exploitation of his lower class workers by refusing to allow them to form a union.

Sadly these sentiments can still be found in our society today. Big business can create complete monopolies. A modern example of this is the Wal Mart Corporation. Not only has Wal Mart depleted the pool of competition (their prices are far to low for any mom and pop store to even attempt to match) the company exploits its human resources. Outsourced companies taking jobs and revenue away from the American economy create many of the products, while the employees labor for low pay and few benefits. Also the ethnic and racial tensions can still be seen in our society. Biased opinions still favor one race above another, even against the attempts to alleviate such dissention. We still see the outlines of the social hierarchy according to financial status. The few powerful rich still attempt to manipulate and control the lesser middle and lower classes.

I think that Social Darwinism is an extremist ideal that did not advance society as it was perhaps intended. It places too much stress on the natural fallacy; the idea that what is natural is morally or ethically right. Just because survival of the fittest exists in nature does not mean the human society should serve as the paradigm. The harsh nature of the concept lends to the assumption that perhaps it is not as much of a dog eat dog world as we interpret. Society is not so simple a structure that more is better, or that skin color can actually be a decisive factor in judging moral character or skill level.